But anarchism is more than "behavior", it's a socio-political system. And I don't find membership in a hierarchical formal organization like a athletic club very compelling. Athletic clubs are some of the most militaristic and bureaucratic structures in existence.

Now, the EZLN and Spanish anarchists are actual examples. But neither succeeded (indeed, the anarchist uprising ended up sealing the fate of Republican Spain). And you just said you condemned the actions of the Spanish anarchists, who did what they could in the face of fascist repression. Anarchism is quickly criticized and disavowed by political purists when it meets the hard reality of real life.

"lol yeah thats the point."

What's the point? To fail?

I believe his point was that Anarchists haven't been in power. Because they don't want power... They want equality.

So the point of Anarchy isn't to be in power.

There's no glorification here, or pursuit of moral purity. Just discussion. Obviously anarchists have a problem with power, that's the whole point, but to be fair I did give examples, and there is plenty more to digest on wikipedia.

Re: property, you're shifting the goal posts, but your argument that transactions, contracts, buying, selling and profit-making can fundamentally not be pursued without a state is also false. Somalia, again, is an example. You might argue that these things are *easier* with a state (and I would agree), but not that they are inherently impossible without one. As an anarchist myself, I think that the utilisation of authority and force should be *minimised*, subject to voluntary association and democratic control. So what you're saying is neither here nor there.

The EZLN didn't succeed? Huh? Did I miss something?

Krellin is too hardcore for coherence. He prefers to rely on personal attacks and gibberish to get his extremely rational and well developed points across.

What has the EZLN achieved? Ironically their programme is largely one of reforming the state, not smashing it, which is why many anarchists have criticized it for not being anarchist enough. But aside from controlling a handful of municipalities in Chiapas, what has it actually done?

And anarchists surely do want "power", if only to smash the state. Or is it nothing but a lifestyle?

Homo Sapiens has been around anywhere between 50,000-200,000 years, depending on when you want to start counting. Governments (in the modern sense) have been around for less than 8,000 years. Anarchism, with all its benefits and pitfalls, is the natural state of man.

"Re: property, you're shifting the goal posts, but your argument that transactions, contracts, buying, selling and profit-making can fundamentally not be pursued without a state is also false. Somalia, again, is an example."

If Somalia is your example of a functioning stateless society with property rights then that's problematic. The extent to which Somalia is "anarchic" is quite exaggerated. The old British protectorate of Somaliland functions quite well, with a government and everything. It seeks independence from the old Italian protectorate, which is governed half by the transitional authority recognized by the UN and half by the Shabab movement. Both are states in all but name. But neither are high functioning due to the ongoing civil conflict between the two.

The idea that property rights are protected is a rarely odd claim, especially in light of the Volunteer Coastguard's efforts at what is uniformly called "piracy".

I didn't think I was moving the goalposts. I thought property involved more than land. Land is but one factor of production.

Are you kidding me Tolstoy?

Humanity has been a organized society since the family existed. If you want to call Anarchy anything without a government sure I guess you're right.

But early tribes, there was an alpha, someone in charge. A ruler so to speak. Its present in apes, dogs, all sorts of wild animals, and it was present in the human as well.

Our natural state is the submission of our will to a greater authority.

"Anarchism, with all its benefits and pitfalls, is the natural state of man."

So is dying at the age of 20. Thankfully, we've progressed. Doubt the early stateless societies were as non-hierarchical as anarchists claim anyway.

*rather, not rarely

'Power' smuggles in a lot of potential meanings. Anarchists want to fundamentally reduce they amount of unjustified social control exercised by individual or group X over individual or group Y. So it's not so much that they want power, as they want others '*out* of 'power'.

You asked for examples, I gave you the EZLN. They essentially cover a large chunk of Chiapas, which is a region with about 4.5 million people, and have done so for a significant period of time. They've withstood attacks from the Mexican government during that period and there's no immediate prospect of that changing. What's the problem? Hopefully you're not assuming that if a movement doesn't immediately ripple across the globe and liberate everyone then it hasn't achieved anything.

Damian - organisation and anarchism are anything but mutually exclusive. Anarchism is a just a *different kind* of organisation. Interested to see your evidence that submission to authority is inherent to human behaviour. Whom do you ask the permission of when you need to go and take a shit?

@Putin - You can still successfully maintain your ownership over any commodity with force, without the state. Potentially.

"Are you kidding me Tolstoy? "

No.

"But early tribes, there was an alpha, someone in charge. A ruler so to speak. Its present in apes, dogs, all sorts of wild animals, and it was present in the human as well. "

I agree that we, like all primates, tend towards a hierarchical social structure. But this is not a government; it relies on voluntarism. In a hunter-gatherer band, it's easy for people to walk off and join another band (or form their own) if they're not happy with the leadership of the one they're in. Humans are weak, individually. Alpha males always need beta males to help in the hunt, protect the territory, kill the grizzly bear or cave lion that tries to eat Alpha male, etc. No alpha male is going to survive on his own without betas, and betas aren't going to stick around if it's not worth their while. Our natural state may rely on submission to an authority, but that submission is 1) voluntary, and 2) only going to happen if the submitter feels he/she is getting more out of it than he/she otherwise would've gotten on their own. The crucial difference is that governments *demand* submission that they wouldn't otherwise get, using the threat of extreme violence.

Oh wonderful a 'different kind' of organization. How peachy. I describe a dictatorship to you, and you tell me that I'm describing to you a situation that is still anarchist. Please.

Social creatures by nature of being social must have social order, this organization/order, in the natural world comes about in the form of a hierarchy of power. The opposite of equality. The OPPOSITE OF ANARCHISM. Do I make myself perfectly clear.

I just finished a two hour debate on the topic two days ago with one of my profs. Where I argued that the critical aspect of humanity was not free will but submission.

I'm not particularly keen on rehashing the entire argument. However I will say your argument boils down to scale. You don't ask permission when you need to go to the washroom. But you sure has hell as a lot of other questions to an authority. Namely, where can I go to the washroom, is now an appropriate time to go to the washroom.

Even in a primitive tribe setup, these sorts of questions would be asked, and while somethings you could figure out on your own based on what the ruler had told you.

For example don't go the washroom where the rest of the tribe is sleeping. Now is a bad time to go to the washroom we're about to catch this deer.

Blah blah blah. Suffice to say, matter of scale. Not every single decision needs to be made with respect to some higher authority. However the very fact that when humans come together a hierarchy forms, where the lesser submit to the greater shows a submission that is inherent. You submit your will to the community, who submits itself to its leader.

Why is it that if the submission is to public entity, it's considered to be forced. But if it's to a private entity, it's assumed to be voluntary. How on earth were early hunter-gatherer societies "voluntary" associations in any meaningful way? Where do we get this assumption that extreme violence wasn't used to keep "betas" in line, because there's no government?

This fallacy that the only entity that employs coercion is the state needs to be eliminated from the public consciousness.

No idea what you're on about is the first sentence :S Generally though these seem to be empirical claims, would be interested to see the evidence. You're right though, we could go on forever. Also interested: if hierarchy is inherent in human nature, why do some humans (like, say, me) reject it almost totally? Am I defective or something? :P

The Robinson Crusoe version of history is not reality. "Economic man" never existed. It's not as if people had a competitive market of possible communities to join. It was either submit or starve.

@Putin, you're right about all of that. Still missing the point though.

Yeah the historical argument for anarchism is deeply flawed at best. Suffice it to say, society is pretty different now.

" Also interested: if hierarchy is inherent in human nature, why do some humans (like, say, me) reject it almost totally? Am I defective or something? :P"

Perhaps your parents let you pick your own name, pick your own clothes, choose your own curfew, choose your own diet, etc?

Tolstoy: Given that you agree that hierarchies are the natural thing to form when humans and other social animals come together. That's the thing though. It is a government. We can just walk away from our country now too.

This system of social organization bears all the hallmarks of government. Lets use a democratic government as an example.
Category Democratic Hierarchy
-Cost Benefit Analysis: Vote for another Party/Migrate: Challenge the leader for control/Leave
- Crime and Punishment: Jail/Flee Seek Asylum : Punishment/Exile

Not really that different thus far.
Continue down this train of thought and you'll find the only real different between the Hierarchy, and the Democratic government, is one of scale. There are more people under a government then in a tribe.

Evidently the fact that people voluntarily accede to government authority doesn't count. The fact we continue to vote and support our public institutions continues to be ignored by certain libertarian/anarchist theorists.

"if hierarchy is inherent in human nature, why do some humans (like, say, me) reject it almost totally? Am I defective or something?"

Yes, you are 'defective'. But you are not alone. :-)

The urge to conform, be accepted as part of 'the group', and please authority figures is deeply ingrained in human nature (but not inevitable). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

As is the anti-social pathology of demanding all of society get your written consent before doing the slightest little thing in the public's name.

@Putin - LOL, but that's a great point, to some extent parental power over minors is a great example of a legitimate use of power. Chomsky uses the example of his granddaughter running out onto a road - of course you should stop her, but nor does that mean you should break her legs or control her every step. The point of anarchism is to apply the test: 'is this justified?', and quite often when it comes to the state the answer is 'no'.

Tolstoy's absolutely right. Just because humans display deference to authority some or most of the time, doesn't mean it's immutable.